On Wednesday 23 September 2009 10:09:23 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > The problem with these is that they are executable scripts, e.g. a user
> > could expect them to be able to run, IMO. Solving this can be done by
> > fixing the shebang (as for
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 03:53:43 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Should we start filing bugs on these issues? In the end, they are
> broken scripts on the system. Is there interest for porting the Prefix
> shebang QA check to normal Portage?
for the shell dependency issue, a review bug may be use
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check
> shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed. We
> basically did this simply because we don't want to use say
> /usr/bin/perl and because th
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Should we start filing bugs on these issues? In the end, they are
> broken scripts on the system. Is there interest for porting the Prefix
> shebang QA check to normal Portage?
Sounds useful to me, my vote for it.
Sebastian
Hi all,
Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check
shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed. We
basically did this simply because we don't want to use say
/usr/bin/perl and because this executable might not exist (e.g. on
vanilla FreeBSD). Even if i
